The apparently obligatory 'Persecuted Christian' thread

[WilliamPitt]

'K. Here's my thinking. There are atheists and Jews and Muslims and Christians and agnostics posting here every day. Everyone should respect everyone. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen.

As a Christian, I have felt on occasion that some posters here beat on Christians here...but not because the people they are beating on are Christian. I think some here beat on DU Christians for the crimes perpetrated by fake-ass Christians like Falwell and Robertson and Bush, etc. I think some here beat on DU Christians because they are sickened at how Christianity has been warped and perverted in America. I think, in those moments of frustration, any Christian will do.

So how's this for an idea: Assume that a Christian on DU is your ally. Assume they try to live by the tenets of Christianity - kindness, mercy, generosity, selflessness. Assume they are as sickened by the fake-ass Christians as you are.

If you accept those pretty straightforward assumption, then beating on Christians here for the crimes and misdeeds of Christians out there becomes clearly misplaced aggression, and should be curbed.

Thems me thoughts.

[stray cat]

1. Thank you Will.

[SemperEadem]

43. There needs to be a distinction between RW Neocon Cult-christians

and those who live by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I don't believe that the majority of flames are against those DU Christians who refrain from shoving their doctrine down other people's throats. I believe the majority of the hue and cry is against those christians who are cult-minded in their approach and execution of their faith. It is those who blur the lines of decency and who forget "do unto others has you would have them do unto you".

Those who take comments personally when the comment is aimed against the rw neocon cult-christian need to take a step back and ask themselves why they personally feel threatened by a post on a public message board.

[Ian David]

2. I am sure we don't mean to make our christian DU friends uncomfortable

I for one only rail against the BAD christians.

What was it Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, just not your Christians" or something to that effect.

[DemBones DemBones]

72. The hell you don't! You're the one who posted in the LBN thread

about the kidnapping of a Catholic archbishop in Mosul, saying something like "Tell them we only need the head back." I know damn well you would NEVER say such a thing about a kidnapped Muslim or Jew.

[Ian David]

87. He wasn't a kidnapped Christian

He was a kidnapped ARCH BISHOP!


We've said some pretty nasty things about the pResident, his cabinet, and members of Congress.

The Arch Bishop is part of the hierarchy of fundie whacko oppressors.

And his only business in Iraq was to exploit the pain of the Iraqis into an opportunity to convert them.

We can criticize the government of the catholic "church" without criticizing Catholics, just as we can criticize the government of America without saying Americans are all neocon fundies.

So yeah, I would have been happy to see his head returned in a ziplock.

I am sorry if you thought it was an attack on all Catholics or Christians.

[villager]

3. kinda like making all Jews responsible for the misdeeds of Likud...

But I know what ya mean...

[Taxloss]

4. Hear hear.

eom

[mhr]

5. I Specifically Challenge The Fundamentalists Christian Bush Supporters

If that includes some DUers, then so be it!

[stray cat]

8. Probably would have more success finding them at a different site.

I haven't noticed too many fundamentalist Christian Bush supporters at DU.

[mhr]

61. Yes, But These Are The People Many Of Us Discuss - Criticizing Them Has

Apparently caused the non-Bush supporters much grief.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. By your reasoning, bashing Bush here is pointless too. (nt)

[txaslftist]

6. You wanna toss Southerners in there, too?

Seems like a lot of threads around here trying to refight the civil war, too.

How about live and let live.

[WilliamPitt]

10. That's a whole 'nother mess

[Boosterman]

74. Yep and Lord (thats irony btw) help you

if you are a southern white christian male on this board.

[Kitka]

7. Well said. This non-Christian agrees.

nt

[theboss]

9. I posted the obligatory thread out of frustration more than anything

I don't have a persectution complex. I like discussing my faith and having my beliefs challenged. And I have never claimed to understand the mind of God.

But it seems this has been "Let's point out another dozen reasons why all Christians are idiots week."

It got to me.

[StClone]

11. It be easier to do if...

Most our Catholic friends and relatives hadn't drank the Kool Aid and voted for a non-Catholic. Corrupted values have made me leery of Christians until they show me they are above issues of little or no consequence (abortion or Gay Marriage) or supporting unjust war. They need to persuade me that they care about aiding the poor and saving the souls by setting an example and having courage. They have to "save" my belief in them to regain my respect.

I won't go out of my way to attack my fellow Christians, however.

[texastoast]

12. Agreed

You can't throw out the real Christians with the fake-ass bathwater.

Christian is as Christian does.

[havocmom]

13. Might be good to differentiate CLEARLY when we are encouraging those

who Walk the Walk and attack those who just talk the talk. Many here try to use 'xian' or a lower case C when they are referring to those who do not really demonstrate adherence to Christian teachings. I would encourage that distinction be used more widely.

People of faith and honor should all be considered as our allies. That includes old school GOP members who have seen their party taken over by a bunch of corporate pimping criminals. We need to reach across to all who might be our allies in restoring America.

And that means no blanket Red State bashing is helpful either.

[AngryOldDem]

14. Will...thanks

You said so eloquently what many others have been trying to say for a very long time.

Maybe now people will listen.

[killbotfactory]

15. I think the Bible is a horrible book

full of justifications of ethnic cleansing, racism, bigotry, homophobia, slavery, ignorance, etc... which is pretty much like every other religion known to man, but frankly, I'm sick of having that piece of crap crammed down my throat at every turn, so I'm speaking out about it. If that makes you feel persecuted, so be it.

[WilliamPitt]

26. I'd be curious to see

if you can point to a DU post or thread that crams anything down your throat. If you term discussions on Christianity, or anyone who mentions their own Christianity, as 'cramming,' I'd suggest your definition of 'throat-cramming is specious and unreasonable.

Just my 2 ducats.

[killbotfactory]

27. Not on DU specifically

I live in Colorado Springs, CO. The "Mecca for Evangelicals". Home of Focus on the Family. I have to put up with their crap every day. DU is one of the places I come to vent.

[WilliamPitt]

29. Ah

Understandable.

:cheers:

[shrike]

63. I think a lot of people see DU as a place to vent safely n/t

[AliciaKeyedUp]

84. Ignorance

Apparently is not just located in the bible.

[madrchsod]

16. someone once said something like this-

you will be judged by your deeds not your words...i wonder who said that?

[wryter2000]

17. What I'd like to see

I'd like to have a term to designate Falwell "Christians." It tried using Xtians, but someone said that was Christian bashing. Please can we have a term so that when I excoriate Xtians, people here know I'm not talking about real Christians?

[Rob H.]

38. The term I use when talking about fake Christians is...

...Christianists. If you like it, feel free to pass it on. :)

[Telly Savalas]

44. how 'bout "pseudochristian"

or if you say "fundie" it's pretty clear you're narrowing your focus to the Falwell crowd.

[SemperEadem]

49. "Cult-christians" is the term you're looking for

[KittyWampus]

62. Pharisees Pretty Well Covers It.

[Must_B_Free]

65. wrong

look up the definition of cult

[geniph]

86. I call 'em ConCINOs -

Conservative-Christians-In-Name-Only. I've been calling 'em that for years. I keep hoping the term will catch on.

I know others who call 'em Christofascists, but I like to make it very clear that I differentiate between those who actually read their Bibles - especially the Gospels - and those who simply thump on 'em.

[BOSSHOG]

18. Mississippi is a red state

I live in Mississippi (MS)

MS voted overwhelmingly for bush
MS touts itself as a haven for "family based values"
MS touts itself as strongly supporting conservative republican candidates
MS is overwhelmingly christian conservative
MS passed an anti homosexual amendment during the last election

MS has a higher than average divorce rate
MS has a higher than average incest rate
MS has a higher than average teen pregnancy rate
MS receives more federal dollars than it gives

Pardon the hell out of me for connecting the dots and saying christians (in this state) are worthy of my bashing for the pontificating and holier than thou flaunting of their religion and their political power. As for me, I am a law abiding, tax paying productive citizen, zero criminal record, 24 year military vet, happily married for 30 years; and I don't feel welcome in this state. I welcome any and all christian points of view that suggest I'm just so totally out of line to dare raise the voice of criticism against the saved ones.

[txaslftist]

20. Well hell...Mississippi...

That's a whole different kettle of fish.

I mean, jeez. Mississippi.

[IrateCitizen]

Isn't Mississippi's greatest claim to fame...

... that it prevents Texas from ranking dead-last in many leading social indicators?

I've read Molly Ivins saying that on numerous occasions, especially WRT education.... ;-)

[txaslftist]

39. Yeah, Mississippi makes Texas look good...

Thanks for small favors.

[ClassicDem]

23. It's not just the Christians...

I can see how you connect the dots but here is the issue, even though Mississippi voted heavy Republican there were still Democrat Votes. And 75% of those Democrat voters were probably Christian, so you should not be angry at the Christians you should be angry at the people who voted Republican.

What is sad is here in Oregon we voted down a gay marriage amendment also, and in the voting our state voted about 65% for Kerry and 35% for Bush but the Gay Marriage Amendment failed by over 70%. This tells me it's not just Republicans who are voting against Gay Marriage it's Democrats too. Which makes me sick but I have to accept that there are bigots on both sides of the party.

Here in Oregon I am not angry at Christians or Republicans or Democrats for voting down the Gay Marriage I am angry at the bigots, because that is what those people are bigots.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. And Oregon is one of the most non-religious states in the country

Only about 1/3 of the residents claim any religious affiliation at all, and it also has the highest percentage of declared atheists.

However, unfortunately, a significant number of the non-religious people in Oregon are macho-macho lumberjacks and ranchers, and I guess that trumps secularism when it comes to a topic like gay rights.

[wabeewoman]

67. Agree with you Lydia

I've noticed a lot of insecurity in a fair number of males. During the primary caucus I shared a table with a very liberal guy who wanted to put an anti-gay marriage in the Dem platform. Also in primarily white schools, I've seen much more homophobia among male students than racism. Its an interesting phenomenon. I'd love to see some studies on it and an explanation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. I think it comes from the macho sports culture

Boys grow up being told not to "act like girls." If a sports team does poorly, the coach addresses them as "ladies." When my brothers were in school, the coaches used to recruit reluctant students by asking, "What are you, a fag?"

When I taught on the college level, I found a ridiculous level of homophobia on the part of my male students. When we were studying comparative and superlative adjectives, they refused to answer the question, "Who do you think is the most handsome actor?" Meanwhile, the female students had no trouble answering the question, "Who do you think is the most beautiful actress?"

I think the answer is that girls are rarely told not to "act like boys," nor are groups of girls ever addressed as "gentlemen" if they play rough, nor do teachers ask, "What are you, a lesbian?" if a girl refuses to take home ec.

Boys are placed in a much narrower frame and are ridiculed and browbeaten into staying in it.

[BOSSHOG]

32. I guess I just don't get it

When I see and hear and document people hating in the name of Jesus Christ what am I supposed to think? Throw up my hands and say oh well there are Christians who don't hate in the name of Jesus Christ so everything is great in the world. There is a large segment of society which uses the bible to direct their vote against the constitutional liberties of many of our citizens. What am I supposed to think? Oh well, there are many Christians who don't hate, so I should just disregard my oath to protect the Constitution. I read alot of posts by christians who don't appreciate my posts declaring that fundies and fake christians don't represent them. So why am I the bad guy? Why aren't "real" christians activated and crossing swords and taking back their churchs from the "fake" christians? Not one church in this country is threatened by anything I do or post. If a religious person feels threatened because I value the constitution more than a religious document, then they may want to choose a place where their religious beliefs are the law of the land. I will fight to the death to ensure this country does not become that land.

[stopbush]

37. Bravo! Good thoughts.

They asked JF Kennedy the Pope v Constitution question back in '60, and he had the right answer. I wonder how many politicos today would have the guts - or intellect - to give the same answer.

[ClassicDem]

60. You walk a fine line.

I understand that you want to keep fundamentalists from writing their laws into the Constitutions, but you still need to recognize the fact that the Constitution grants all people the right to practice their religion as they see fit.

Protecting the Constitution via denying people the rights that it grants is not the end to the mean.

In regards to the statement:

"Why aren't "real" Christians activated and crossing swords and taking back their churchs from the "fake" christians?"

I know you are nothing like these two jokers but this is the same argument that Rush and Sean make against Muslims. Christians are not responsible for policing other Christians, just like whites are not responsible for policing whites and blacks are not responsible for policing blacks. We are all human no matter what color, sex, religion or sexual preference. If someone preaches hate ignore them, if they commit acts of violence notify the authority and press charges.

Every group has bad members, you should recognize that the problem is with those members and not the group.

[Dob Bole]

76. No, it's not you...it's Mississippi

I was raised north of Mobile. The closer to Mississippi you get, the more racist people get. Plus, the beach at Biloxi is nasty, and the Cajuns somehow wound up in Louisiana and Alabama and did not dare set foot there. :)

That said...excellent music from Mississippi.

[Boosterman]

77. And 40 % of them voted for Kerry

After your post it probably will be 39%. J/k...sorta

[ClassicDem]

19. Will nice Post,

People will get farther and do more with love and compassion in their heart than hate and anger.

If someone says something you disagree with, remember it's the individual speaking not the religion. And if the person says something mean and spiteful to you, just remind them that you love them and end the conversation.

[Bouncy Ball]

21. ...

Assume they are as sickened by the fake-ass Christians as you are.

That's a pretty safe assumption to make, too. I am disgusted by them. Beating their chest and banging the pots and pans, screaming how pious they are, while acting in an immoral manner all the while.

I call them Pharisees.

[Lerkfish]

58. yup, I like the term "new pharisees" as well.

I'm a christian, who believes Jesus was the ultimate liberal.
the new pharisees sicken me as much as they do others who aren't christians.
I join with them as brothers in being sickened. Unfortunately, they don't don't consider me a brother, but the enemy and ignore that I am on the same page.

That is the problem.

The solution requires open minds. Until minds open to that point, there can be no solution.

[displacedtexan]

22. Present Company Excepted!

I should include those words more often in my posts!

I always assume that anyone honestly associated with DU (not freepin' freepers) is NOT part of the "Oh, woe is me! I'm being persecuted!" Tammy Faye (the former Mrs. Bakker) Xtian Crowd.

I will try to point that out in the future.

[Union Thug]

24. As an Atheist/Nihilist

I can only go by my experience. Yes, I do realize that there are a few people that call themselves Xtians that actually manifest the values you list externally and try to make the world a better place for all. The problem is, and this is, of course, just my experience, that the vast majority of American Xtians are self congratulatory, arrogant, better than thou, judgemental, self righteous, assholes.

Now, I suspect the Xtians here at DU make up, by and large, the population of folks that I would consider 'good' or 'true' xtians. But when you are innundated day in and day out with the more typical Xtian Merkin Style, then it tends to cloud the way you see everyone who wears the Xtian label. The bad always cast a larger shadow.

I do appreciate your thoughts.

[rman]

52. why are you a nihilist?

nihilism:
(from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

"Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history."

<more>
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

[Union Thug]

64. This is a great question

I realized I was a nihilist one day when someone asked my about what I thought about inalienable rights endowed by a creator.

I said that I don't believe in a creator. We, humans, create our own morals, we invent rights and call them inalienable. It has nothing to do with a god, creator, or supernatural forces external to us. These truths are self evident only because we fabricated them.

He said something like, then you don't believe in rights handed down by a creator and so you don't believe in inalienable rights. Because, without a creator or moral progenitor, men run the risk of totalitarian interpretations..etc...

I said something like, people that believe in god have and continue to create, support and participate in totalitarian societies. God has nothing to do with it. Ultimately men (meaning men and women) create values, morals and ideologies. If we choose to fool ourselves into thinking it is anything more than that, I suppose that's a right, as well.

He said, You sound like a nihilist.

I said, I guess I am.

On edit: that article portrays a very pessimistic view of nihilism and seems to want to include in the definition some reference to Russian political nihilism of the 19th century. It talks about a social crisis postulated by Nietzche, but it fails to mention that Nietzche also believes that out of this crisis a new kind of human would emerge, hence, as i recall, the rise of the uber-man, free from those social, emotional, and religious constructs that in former times cages and restricted him.

[hfojvt]

70. the fellow was wrong

What you are describing - humanity creating its own values is existentialism, not nihilism, which as defined there as a rejection of all values.
But my girl Vida Dutton Scudder was a fan of Nietzche as well, so finding some good in the Nazi philosopher is not out of the question. I do not think the uber-man is it though, as Dostoevsky takes care of that idea in "Crime and Punishment".

[Union Thug]

71. I don't know if I would call it the rejection of all values so much...

as the rejection of our default acceptance of the "value" of those values.

I don't think anything has any intrinsic value accept for that which we assign to it. Some would say that this would, in fact, venture into the realm of nihilism because we reject the face value of those ideas and scrutinize them for their usefulness.

As for Nietzche as a "nazi philosopher", I think that's an unfair characterization. Personally, I find many of his ideas liberating. I'm no expert, admittedly, but the idea of the over-man, to me, is one of a human being that is able to cast off all the social stigmas, all norms and mores and create a better world free from the junk-baggage of the past.

[hfojvt]

81. Still sounds like existentialism to me

but I never did get very far into "Being and Nothingness". I think the essence of nihilism is that they reject all values except a will to power, but as I said there are progressive thinkers who found things of value in Nietzche. Still, as I have said before, no one has ever read Nietzche and been inspired to build a phalanx, and no one has ever read Charles Fourier and been inspired to build a concentration camp. Hitler and his ilk thought they were the uber-men.
As I think Dostoyevsky points out, some of those old fashioned norms and mores are prohibitions against things like stealing and murder (and genocide and war) and admiration for compassion and mercy. Nietzche goes too far and throws out the baby with the bath water. Of course, I got that from the essay in the comic book version of "Crime and Punishment" - comic book classics.

[papau]

25. thanks Will - a nice truthful post - as always.

:-)

[gumby]

30. Causes me to think of Serrano.

The "fake-ass Christians" consider themselves to be every bit Christian as the next Christian. In fact, the consider themselves to me more and better Christians. I agree, all who claim the religion are Christians and Christianity owns them all.

It's like the distinction between "terrorist" and "good" Muslims. Again, all Muslims are Muslims are they not?

[Salviati]

31. Hear Hear

The corollary to this, is for the Christians on DU to give their fellow DU'ers the benefit of the doubt when they begin to make overly broad generalizations.

When someone posts something that one may construe as Christian bashing, assume that they are really bashing the fake ass-christians, and try to direct the attacks toward those worthy targets.

It is up to each side to set a good example for the other, and hopefully we will begin to see that we are allies in this fight against hate and ignorance.

[forgethell]

33. Good post, Will.

You need to call it what it is, bigotry. And coming from those claiming not to be bigots, hypocrisy.

[Sparkly]

34. I think we just need different language to refer to the "fake-ass" ones

and not just here, either. I agree there's confusion when people *mean* "fake-ass Christians" but just say "Christians." Same's true for example, on Scarborough, where they had a week of alternating between whining and rejoicing about Bush's supposed pious righteousness. "The people chose to vote for a Christian!" So what's John Kerry, an atheist? See what I mean? There's a need for new language, I think.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

75. That's exactly it. Republican fake "Christians" have perverted the word

to mean only them. They clearly do not consider anyone who is politically moderate or liberal to be a true Christian, so Kerry, Gore, Clinton or any Democrat is assumed not to be one. It has been accepted in the media that "Christian" = Republican beliefs.

It's offensive because they never even talk about what Jesus really said for obvious reasons, they just use his name.

I don't consider myself a Christian, but I get offended that Falwell, Robertson and Bush have been allowed to call themselves the true "Christians" and the representatives of Jesus and everybody accepts that. It could not be more Orwellian.

[stopbush]

35. "Assume they try to live by the tenets of Christianity -

kindness, mercy, generosity, selflessness"???

Are those the tenets of that religion? What about tenets like setting brother against brother, parent against child? How about all of the anti-woman tenets? How about having to love Jesus more than you love your own family? You know, those myriad other tenets Jesus talked about?

Seems to me that modern-day American fundies are pretty much following the tenets of Xtianity. Why cherry pick the liberal parts of those tenets to sugarcoat the full experience?

[Lerkfish]

59. hmm...what bible are YOU reading?

I think you're taking some things out of context, and some others things simply aren't in there, as teachings of Christ.

Christ was never anti-woman. If anything, he bucked the system to elevate women above what they were allowed at the time.

I understand you have some emotional baggage about christianity, but you should not be making these assumptions without real knowledge.

[gpandas]

88. the old "emotional baggage insult, eh? n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. why cant we assume people are adults and know

what type and kind of christianity is being questioned?

[Zenlitened]

42. Agreed!!!

:hi:

[ScaRBama]

40. I'm a Christian and see no place for any kind of hate.

Hate only breeds more hate and divides us instead of uniting us. Freedom is all about a choice to follow a path you choose,not a path I try and force upon you.

[IrateCitizen]

41. Pissing into the wind...

Good luck with this, Will. Lord knows I've tried expressing similar sentiments here, with absolutely ZERO effect.

I'm afraid this is one of those issues that will continue to inflame and antagonize DUers so long as DU is around....

[Az]

45. An occaisional reminder goes a long ways

Particularly if it comes from both ends of the issue.

Sometimes in the heat of discussions we lose sight of some things. We each bring our own personal pet problems to the fight. We sometimes forget that we are more allie than enemy with those we argue with here.

[Fovea]

46. I think that your perceptions are correct, on the whole

And smackdowns based on faith are no more valid than smackdowns based on race or gender. These things go seriously to the core of who we are, yes, but they are so generalized as to provide little real information to the auditor about a specific person.

The merits of condemning all Christians over the actions or opinions of maybe 30-50% of the flock at best are arguably no greater than asking all Muslims to not only eschew terrorism, but actively combat it.

But here is where it is difficult. At what point do Christians stop being their brother's keeper? As a Wiccan, and hence a faith whose only orthodoxy is that we have as little Orthodoxy as possible, the question has been always vexing. Certainly, my personal faith is constantly held to account generally for the behaviors of its most disturbed members, as you are held to answer for Pat Roberson. It is part of the burden we of faith must bear, I fear.

The alternative would be worse than Orwellian, a fierce orthodoxy and highly punitive community of faith, and currently extant examples do not make
the alternative look very palatable. To paraphrase the movie Timeline,
"the only thing worse than dying there is living there."
Where we have the greatest difference between westerners and the Islamists is the freedom to be a truly bad example of your faith, or to eschew faith entirely.

That freedom to be skeptical of religion should be respected by both parties, the skeptic as well as the faithful. I say that as a member of the religion that actually invented democracy. We agreed with the Gods that we would do our best, and got trial by jury instead of vendetta and terror. After giving up vengeance and irrational hatred, democracy is a cinch.

In some places and times, religion sees its primary role as the prevailing link to the numinous, hence the term 're-ligio'. In others, the relationship to the Latin term 'to bind' is more appropriate, as religion is primarily a system of social control, or a method of indemnifying otherwise inexcusable acts.

My mother, a single parent, attempted to raise me southern baptist, despite her occupation as a cocktail waitress, musician, and dance instructor in early sixties St. Louis.

What she actually accomplished was to give me a first hand lesson
in hard wired racism, the banality of evil, and the horrible irrationality that the ignorant overlay the Christian message with to justify hate. I now live about 40 miles from Fred Phelp's soi disant church, an institution that openly glorifies God's supposed hatred for ten percent of his supposed creation.

I personally have been assaulted by self identified Christians from a local high school wielding baseball bats during a holiday service I was holding on private land back in '91. In fact, I taught my religious students back in the day self defense, because it was a life skill for us in the 80's. My boys and girls kicked ass, btw-- generally Wiccans do not turn the other cheek, feeling that not throwing the first punch, and knowing when to stop hitting is the real meaning of mercy.

So it takes me a little more than the next guy to reach the point of perfect trust with those who self identify as Christian. But the point is that I have not stopped trying. Those whom I know who are actually following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth tend to be actual decent human beings, as all evidence suggests you are.


Hwas thu Hal, Will. I don't disrespect you for being a monotheist.

[deutsey]

47. Cornel West: Constantinian Christians vs. Prophetic Christians

I'd love to see both Falwell-style Christians and Christian Bashers have a debate with Cornel West. :evilgrin:

http://www.alternet.org/story/20017/

From an interview with West:

A: You contrast two strains of Christianity. You call them prophetic and Constantinian. As Elaine Pagels points out ... a religion of revolutionaries and free-thinkers, which Christianity was, became an authoritarian state religion with Constantine’s conversion. But who is a prophetic Christian?

CW: Certainly Martin King is a grand example, but also William Sloane Coffin of the antiwar movement, then head of SANE, fighting nuclear weapons. He’s a white brother of course. The white Catholic sister, Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic social movement. Daniel and Phil Berrigan, Catholic brothers. One can go on and on.

A: Why do you use the term prophetic to describe them?

CW: Prophetic goes back to the Jewish invention of the prophetic in Hebrew scriptures. It has to do with believing fundamentally that he or she who loses sight of the poor insults one’s maker, he or she who is in solidarity with the poor exalts one’s maker. Proverbs 14:31. Biblical folk, you can look it up. For Christians the Old Testament, for Jewish brothers and sisters, the Hebrew scripture.

Just as Sister Roy says, it’s about justice. How do you care for the most vulnerable? In the words of Jesus, “the least of these,” in Malcolm X’s language, “the ones who are catching hell.”

A:…and the contrast with the Constantinians?

CW: The Constantinians defer to the empire. We see it today in the market Christianity, the gospels of prosperity, the prayers of let’s make a deal with god, spinning the wheel of fortune to keep up in the rat race. All the paraphernalia of the empire -– power, size, and might become the benchmarks of Constantinian Christian churches.

[Liberal Veteran]

48. THe apparently obligatory "criticism does not equal persecution" reply

What passes for mainstream xstianity in the United States has apparently become maleficent and is used as an excuse to propogate bigotry, greed, oppression, denial of rights, war, and the dismissal of science and reason.

This is not to say that ALL Christians are like that, but certainly the most visible and vocal and largest denominations of Christianity in the US are the ones that are responsible for this.

I think when someone makes a criticism about Christianity they shouldn't have to run around qualifying it each time with a disclaimer saying they are not talking about the GOOD Christians. And even when people do qualify their criticisms there is always SOMEONE who takes offense at the criticism as though they were talking about them personally.

A good majority of these flamewars would be prevented if the more thin-skinned people would just realize that the criticisms are NOT aimed at them specifically.

Oh, and one more thing. If someone calls your religion a collection of fairy tales or a mythological belief, they have the right to express that. It is ridiculous to expect people who believe that all religions are bogus to not say exactly what they mean. You should be secure enough in your faith to accept there are people who find your version of the "invisible man in the sky" any more compelling than you find the "invisible men/women/animals/half-animals on Mt. Olympus".

[Cuban_Liberal]

50. Thank you, Will.

Well said.

:thumbsup:

[DearAbby]

51. Well said Will

Being a "non-believer" myself, I try hard not to paint with a broad brush. I realize there are Christians that actually follow the teachings of Jesus.

I just wished they would be more vocal. Stand up for their faith that is being trashed by these pseudo-christians.

[villager]

53. "Bush has done more than any recent president to champion...

...what is important to serious Christians of every tradition."

So there's this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1162256


And boy, do Christians who actually still follow the teachings of Jesus have a lot of housecleaning to do...

[Bridget Burke]

54. Are some of our "aggressors" less courageous in real life?

I was raised Catholic in rural Texas--enjoyed learning about the faith but was never devout. For many years now, I've considered myself agnostic or atheist--with a strong interest in myth, legend & comparative religion. I've also studied up on the Christian Reconstructionists--the dangerous types who have politicized religion. They're several steps beyond Fundamentalists and/or Evangelicals and quite dangerous.

Are some of the more aggressive "Christian Bashers" less forthcoming about their beliefs offline? Are they still supported by family members who demand they show signs of a faith they no longer possess? Are they afraid to speak their minds around their friends & co-workers? Are they "reformed" hard-core religious types who are, in fact, ashamed of their past? But it's easy to be a ruff & tuff atheist online....

And one or two of them may be disrupters.

[hunter]

55. I thought Christians lived (and died) for persecution!

If the Romans feed you to the lions because you are a Christian, isn't that like a free pass into heaven?

Or better yet, you take a little stroll through the furnace like Shadrach.

I have quite a bit of sympathy for the Christian bashers. Many of them have been smacked around pretty hard by your "fake-ass Christians."

In the gospel these "fake-ass Christians" sometimes go by the name of Pharisees.

Myself, a radical left wing "Social Justice" Catholic with a strong dose of Quaker pacifist, I think I can live in peace with those who have been burned by the "fake-ass Christians."

Those "fake-ass Christians" want to burn me too.

[rman]

56. Imagine how easy it would be for disruptors

to sow discontent amongst DU-ers.

[SmokingJacket]

57. People don't get out of the house enough.

It's easy to bash "red staters" if you've never actually been to a red state and seen that there are almost as many liberals there as there are in a blue state -- and even if there were only a few liberals there, they'd deserve the same respect as anyone else.

It's easy to bash Christians if all you ever see of them is Jerry Falwell and his followers frothing at the mouth.

As a liberal atheist who spends a lot of time thinking about morality and the purpose of life, I find that I actually have more in common with my Christian friends than I do with Americans in general. We might not agree about the existence of a deity, about we have great conversations about spiritual matters.

[Aristus]

66. Thanks, Will. I tried to check on a reply I made earlier today

to a thread dealing with Christians. It looks like it got deleted, so somebody must have done some bashing. I'm a Christian, but to be honest, I understand the hostility; Falwell, Robertson, and His Holy Mightiness Jesus W. Bush are the public face of Christianity in this country, whether we like it or not. Any non-Christian can be excused for looking that the stuff they pull, thinking that THAT is Christianity, and deciding not to have anything to do with it; or worse, to go around bashing anyone who wears the label.

I'm not angry. Just sad that anyone could think Jerry Falwell and I share the same set of values. :(

[wabeewoman]

68. I admit to sometimes forgetting my tact at the door

when I come to DU because I feel at home here and like I can say what I want(within reason, of course). I would rather there be a little 'bashing' and you assume I don't mean you than to have to be so 'politically correct' all the time. I usually don't even comment on Israel threads anymore because if you say anything against Israeli policies, you are accused of being anti-Semitic. There is a bit of being too sensitive I think. If I said, most whites are racist and you knew you weren't racist would you be offended? Then again, maybe I'll just avoid the Christian discussions.

[ConsAreLiars]

69. Some (most?) people of any (or no) religious tradition

are decent people. Many (most?) of the best and most effective and committed advocates for peace, justice, freedom and basic human rights have been devoutly religious people. As an atheist and mere mortal I admire them for their decency and energy and integrity and effectiveness.

Yet at the same time many of the most vile and vicious monsters our species has produced have waged their jihads or crusades under the banner of religion. No wonder the name of the religion they claim to represent is dirtied, and that some (even here) identify the evil they do with the religious tradition they use to hide the essential wickedness of their actions.

[DemBones DemBones]

73. Good thoughts, Will. Thanks for sharing them. nt

[mutus_frutex]

80. well, having had one of my posts deleted because I stated that

people of faith don't usually deserve any respect because they are all a bunch of hypocrites, I can understand you.. :-)

That message that I wrote resulted from the frustration that some other people have expressed in this thread. And I would probably have edited it if asked to (although I stand by my assertion that american catholics ARE hypocrites, and yes, delete this message too if you want. Yes, I'm talking to you moderator, I can defend this position and while you delete this message you will be silencing a valid opinion. Let it remain in your conscience).

Anyway, I find it funny that christians complain when it is us, atheists/agnostics that have been taking up the rear for 3500 years.. :-)

Let me finally say that, as a rational freethinker, I'm instantly suspicious of any faith, regardless of how well intentioned. History has shown us how even well intentioned people are capable of oppression in the name of their faith.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

83. Well intentioned people don't need faith to oppress

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

[mutus_frutex]

85. Non sequitur..

Your post is simply the "Stalin was an atheist" card. And it doesn't follow.

First let me say that neither of these people were what in my original post I would have described as "well intentioned".

Second, your list apparently tries to show how "atheists can be bad too". Well, you can remove Hitler from the list. He was a self-avowed christian.

Third, it could be argued (although I'm not going to do it) that the oppression brought on by these people is not a consequence of a philosophy (i.e. atheism) but from a political ideology (i.e. communism, if we remove Hitler, which, as I pointed out above, doesn't belong in that list).

Cheers.

[quaker bill]

82. Thanks Will

Honestly, some Christians were leading the progressive movement long before the more the secular component became involved in a significant way.

For instance, some Christians were leading the movement to abolish slavery 100 years before the civil war.

Some Christians believed in equal rights for women as far back as 350 years ago.

We are still out there plugging away.